CA2: No PC as to a mere bystander to a drug deal

Officer’s knowledge about the others present before a controlled delivery of drugs in a FedEx package did not show that there was probable cause to believe he knew anything about it. His actions afterward fared no better. For all it showed, he was a bystander. United States v. Valentine, 539 F.3d 88 (2d Cir. 2008):

The officers’ interpretation of Valentine’s actions seems to have been largely informed by his presence at the surveilled apartment building and his familiarity with other men who knew the intended recipient of the FedEx delivery. “[I]n order to find probable cause based on association with persons engaging in criminal activity, some additional circumstances from which it is reasonable to infer participation in criminal enterprise must be shown.” Ingrao, 897 F.2d at 864 (quotation marks omitted). Nothing in the record linked Valentine to Lebron’s suspected narcotics activity or the FedEx delivery, and without more, his presence at the intended site of the controlled delivery — which was also his residence — cannot support probable cause. It is for these reasons that we disagree with the conclusion of the district court and find that the cumulative record is insufficient as a matter of law to “warrant a man of reasonable caution in the belief” that Valentine committed a crime. Carroll v. United States, 267 U.S. 132, 162, 45 S. Ct. 280, 69 L. Ed. 543, T.D. 3686 (1925).

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.